Natividad vs. Gabino

The plain and literal meaning of the words employed by the testator in a will governs its interpretation, and where the testator bequeaths "ownership and dominion" of property, the legacy conveys full ownership, not mere usufruct, even when subject to a conditional reversion upon the legatee's death. The testator's will is the law in matters of last wills and testaments, and testamentary provisions that are not contrary to law or public morals must be complied with literally.

Tiburcio Salvador y Reyes contracted a valid and legal marriage with Anselma Nicasio, who died in 1868, leaving a daughter named Higinia who married Clemente Natividad. Higinia Salvador died in 1913, survived by two children, Emilio and Purificacion, both surnamed Natividad y Salvador. Tiburcio Salvador disposed of all his property through a will executed in legal form on November 9, 1914, instituting as sole heirs his grandchildren Emilio and Purificacion Natividad y Salvador. The will contained a sixth clause making a legacy to Basilia Gabino, which became the subject of the dispute.

Tiburcio Salvador y Reyes executed a will in legal form on November 9, 1914, instituting as sole heirs his grandchildren Emilio and Purificacion, both surnamed Natividad y Salvador. In the sixth clause of this will, the testator bequeathed to Basilia Gabino "the ownership and dominion of the urban property, consisting of a house and lot situated on Calle Lavezares of the said district of San Nicolas and designated by No. 520, and in addition eleven meters by two meters of the lot designated by No. 419, situated on Calle Madrid." The clause further provided: "If the said legatee should die, Lorenzo Salvador shall be obliged to deliver this house, together with the lot on which it stands, to my grandson Emilio Natividad, upon payment by the latter to the former of the sum of four thousand pesos (P4,000), Philippine currency."

The executor of the estate, Emilio Natividad, presented a proposed partition to the court for approval, setting forth in the fourth basis his interpretation that the sixth clause expressed a right of usufruct in favor of Basilia Gabino and a general legacy of P4,000 in favor of Lorenzo Salvador, with the ownership of the property belonging to the heir Emilio Natividad, who had been made liable for these encumbrances by the express will of the testator.

By a writing of August 5, 1915, counsel for the legatee Basilia Gabino opposed the approval of the proposed partition with regard to the adjudication to her of the usufruct only, claiming that she ought to be recognized as entitled to the dominion and ownership of the property. Her counsel requested that the testamentary executor be ordered to amend the fourth basis of the proposed partition so that ownership and dominion, instead of usufruct only, be adjudicated to her.

After proper legal steps had been taken and the written briefs of the parties and the schedule of the proposed partition filed by the testamentary executor had been examined, the trial judge issued the order of August 21, 1915, expressing the opinion that the ownership and dominion of the property mentioned in clause 6 should be awarded to Basilia Gabino, subject to the reservation made in behalf of Lorenzo Salvador and Emilio Natividad. The trial court ordered an amendment made to the fourth basis for the proposed partition and set a day for the hearing and approval of the proposed amended partition. The administrator appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Interpretation of the Legacy: The petitioner-appellant, as administrator of the estate, argued that the sixth clause of the will expressed a right of usufruct in favor of Basilia Gabino and a general legacy of P4,000 in favor of Lorenzo Salvador, with the ownership of the property belonging to the heir Emilio Natividad, who had been made liable for these encumbrances by the express will of the testator.

• Ownership and Dominion: The respondent-appellee, Basilia Gabino, through counsel, opposed the approval of the proposed partition with regard to the adjudication to her of the usufruct only, claiming that she ought to be recognized as entitled to the dominion and ownership of the property, and requested that the testamentary executor be ordered to amend the fourth basis of the proposed partition accordingly.

• Interpretation of the Will: Whether clause 6 of the will executed by Tiburcio Salvador y Reyes should be construed as conveying to Basilia Gabino the ownership and dominion of the property, or merely a usufruct.

• Interpretation of the Will: Yes. The plain and literal meaning of the words employed by the testator in clause 6 clearly conveyed the ownership and dominion of the property to Basilia Gabino, subject to a valid conditional reversion to Emilio Natividad upon her death, and not a mere usufruct.

• Interpretation of the Will: The Court reasoned that a person is entirely free to make his will in such manner as may best please him, provided the testamentary provisions conform to law and meet its requirements. He may impose conditions, either with respect to the institution of heirs or to the designation of legatees, and when the conditions imposed do not fall within the provisions of the Civil Code articles touching heirs and legatees, they shall be governed by the rules therein prescribed for conditional obligations, citing articles 790 and 791 of the Civil Code.

The condition imposed by the testator in the double legacy depended upon the happening of the event constituting the condition, to wit, the death of the legatee Basilia Gabino, a perfectly legal condition according to article 1114 of the Civil Code, as it was not impossible of performance and was not contrary to law or public morals, as provided in article 1116 of said code. The moment the legatee Gabino dies, the other legatee, Lorenzo Salvador, is obliged to deliver the property to the heir Emilio Natividad, who in turn must pay the legatee Salvador the sum of P4,000, thereby fulfilling the double legacy contained in the sixth clause — the first being the voluntary reservation to Basilia Gabino of the ownership of the house, and the second, the conditional legacy of P4,000 to Lorenzo Salvador.

The Court held that it could not be understood that the legacy conveyed only the usufruct of the property because the plain and literal meaning of the words employed by the testator clearly showed beyond all doubt the express wishes of the testator, who, establishing a voluntary reservation of the ulterior and final disposition of the bequeathed property, ordered that the legatee's right of dominion should end at her death, and that on this occurrence his wish was that the ownership of the property should pass to Emilio Natividad, provided the latter delivered the P4,000 to Lorenzo Salvador, who appeared to be the son of the legatee Gabino.

Applying article 675 of the Civil Code, the Court held that it could not be understood that the testator meant to bequeath to Basilia Gabino the mere usufruct of the property, inasmuch as, by unmistakable language, he bequeathed her the ownership or dominion of the said property — language which expressed without the slightest doubt his wishes which should be complied with literally, because it is a constant rule of jurisprudence that in matters of last wills and testaments the testator's will is the law. The Court further noted that while the legatee could not make any disposal of the bequeathed real property to be effective after her death, nor could the property be acquired from her by her heir through testate or intestate succession, the testamentary provision was not contrary to law or to public morals, inasmuch as the testator thereby intended that the property should revert to its lawful heir, the latter being obliged to make a monetary compensation to Lorenzo Salvador.

• Plain Meaning Rule in Testamentary Interpretation — The plain and literal meaning of the words employed by the testator in a will governs its interpretation. Where the testator uses unmistakable language bequeathing "ownership and dominion" of property, the legacy conveys full ownership, not mere usufruct. The Court applied this rule in holding that clause 6 of the will conveyed ownership and dominion to Basilia Gabino, subject to a conditional reversion, because the testator's language expressed without the slightest doubt his wishes.

• Testator's Will as Law — It is a constant rule of jurisprudence that in matters of last wills and testaments, the testator's will is the law. The Court applied this principle in affirming the lower court's order, holding that the testator's wishes, as expressed in the plain language of the will, should be complied with literally.

• Conditional Legacies — A testator may impose conditions on legatees, and when the conditions imposed do not fall within the provisions of the Civil Code articles touching heirs and legatees, they shall be governed by the rules therein prescribed for conditional obligations. The Court applied this doctrine in upholding the condition that upon the death of the legatee Gabino, the property would revert to Emilio Natividad upon payment of P4,000 to Lorenzo Salvador, finding the condition legal under articles 1114 and 1116 of the Civil Code.

• "It cannot be understood that the legacy conveyed only the usufruct of the property because the plain and literal meaning of the words employed by the testator in the said clause sixth clearly shows beyond all doubt the express wished of the testator who, establishing a voluntary reservation of the ulterior and final disposition of the bequeathed property, ordered that the legatee's right of dominion should end at her death, and that on this occurrence his wish was that the ownership of the property should pass to Emilio Natividad, provided the latter in turn delivered said P4,000 to Lorenzo Salvador who appears to be the son of the legatee Gabino." — This passage articulates the core ratio decidendi: the plain meaning of the testator's words controls, and the legacy conveyed ownership subject to a conditional reversion, not a mere usufruct.

• "If the provisions of article 675 of the Civil Code are to be complied with, it cannot be understood that the testator meant to bequeath to Basilia Gabino the mere usufruct of the property, inasmuch as, by unmistakable language employed in the said sixth clause, he bequeathed her the ownership or dominion of the said property — language which expresses without the slightest doubt his wishes which should be complied with literally, because it is constant rule or jurisprudence that in matters of last wills and testaments the testator's will is the law." — This passage states the controlling doctrine that the testator's will is the law in testamentary matters and that plain language must be complied with literally.

• "A person is entirely free to make his will in such manner as may best please him, provided the testamentary provisions conform to law and meet its requirements. He may impose conditions, either with respect to the institution of heirs or to the designation of legatees, and, when the conditions imposed upon the former or the latter do not fall within the provisions of those articles of the Civil Code touching heirs and legatees, they shall be governed by the rules therein prescribed for conditional obligations, (Civ. Code, arts. 790 and 791.)" — This passage establishes the testator's freedom to impose conditions on legacies and the governing rules for conditional obligations.

• N/A — The decision does not cite any prior case law.

• Article 675, Civil Code — The Court applied this provision in holding that the testator's unmistakable language bequeathing "ownership or dominion" of the property must be complied with literally, and that it could not be understood that the testator meant to bequeath mere usufruct.

• Articles 790 and 791, Civil Code — The Court cited these provisions for the rule that a testator may impose conditions on heirs and legatees, and that when such conditions do not fall within the provisions of the Civil Code articles touching heirs and legatees, they shall be governed by the rules prescribed for conditional obligations.

• Article 1114, Civil Code — The Court applied this provision in finding that the condition imposed by the testator, depending upon the death of the legatee Basilia Gabino, was a perfectly legal condition.

• Article 1116, Civil Code — The Court applied this provision in finding that the condition was not impossible of performance and was not contrary to law or public morals.

Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concurred. Moreland, J., concurred in the result.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the decision.